Alexa Coots
Mr. Shapiro
May 5, 2014
Immorality, Morality, and Criminality in Crime and Punishment
Fyodor Mikhailovich Dostoyevsky was an incredibly talented Russian fiction writer, journalist, and publisher in the 1800s. Dostoyevsky wrote many short stories and novels but is most commonly known for his book Crime and Punishment. He had a gambling problem, suffered from epilepsy, and always experienced financial issues, and similar to the protagonist of Crime and Punishment, he was imprisoned in a Siberian prison for some time. Dostoyevsky first published Crime and Punishment in the year of 1866 where he submitted twelve monthly installments to a journal, Russki Vestnik (Russian Messenger.) According to letters translated by George Gibian, Dostoyevsky was under extreme pressure, both time and money wise, while writing Crime and Punishment. In addition to having to write and publish monthly installments of the story to the journal, Dostoyevsky had to come up with and write another novel altogether for a different publisher. That book ended up being one of his other more famous pieces of literature- The Gambler. The whole process left Dostoyevsky extremely depressed. Essentially, he was writing two books at the same time all while being broke, trying to ignore the temptations of gambling, suffering from random epileptic attacks, and grieving the death of his late wife (Shmoop Editorial Team).
The mere fact alone that he was able to complete the two novels in an orderly fashion while staying on track during all of the hardships present in his life is extremely admirable. His life troubles actually helped inspire a lot of the themes that make up Crime and Punishment. It is a complex and detailed story of criminality, morality, and guilt. Based around the main character, Rodion Romanovich Raskolnikov, Crime and Punishment tells the story of an "ex-student" who acts upon "bad thoughts" he has from the beginning of the novel. After indulging in his fantasies and murdering two women, it is rather clear that Raskolnikov is guilty of his actions. In the novel, he justifies his crimes in his own way, going through different emotions and theories before he finally reaches the root cause of his action. The psychology behind Raskolnikov's character is intriguing and difficult to interpret. After robbing and murdering the pawnbroker and her sister, Raskolnikov must come to terms with his feeling, or lack of feeling, of what he just did. By the end of the novel, his remorse for the act and his motive is never fully explained. To him, the whole idea of what happened is confusing and he even goes as far as admitting that he did not understand why he killed them. His character argues that the pawnbroker added nothing to society and therefore her death is of no consequence- nobody would miss her so it basically did not matter if she were dead or alive. But throughout it all, Raskolnikov still feels guilty. The guilt itself is his true punishment for the murder. While he cannot figure out why he did it in the first place, he does know that his guilt indicates that all hope is not lost and that he is not a complete monster. Though it is evident that Raskolnikov feels immense guilt for the murders he committed, not once does he consider the possibility that what he did was immoral or wrong. Raskolnikov truly believes that his actions are noble and his crimes justified due to his suffering of an existential crisis, his psychological makeup, and his theory of "the extraordinary man."
In Crime and Punishment, there is substantial reason to believe that Raskolnikov might have been suffering from an existential crisis. An existential crisis is a moment at which an individual questions the very foundations of their life: whether their life has any meaning, purpose or value at all. Raskolnikov himself was struggling with internal issues, torn within himself between two major polar identities. In essence, he regarded himself so highly that he was mentally confined within his own philosophical thinking. He had lost the power to set his mind on something and to go out and do it. He dropped out of school, cheating himself of an education, his fiance was gone, he stopped working, and he acted as a hermit, wallowing in depression and self pity. Right from the get go it is quite evident that he is experiencing a major crisis in his life and his thoughts toward that crisis are rather depressing. He does not know how to hold himself or how to continue on; he has no definite reason for living. On the other hand, Raskolnikov wanted to be something that he so clearly was not (The Lit Quest). He did not want to be the poor, uneducated, pitiful man that he was in reality so he assumed a personality that encompassed the exact opposite. His character is perceived as a narcissistic, egotistical man who is extremely confident and sure of himself. His false confidence is completely transparent, though, due to the reader being privy to his stream of consciousness. He puts on an act for the public, but within his own mind is turmoil, insecurity, fear, and confusion. If Raskolnikov had committed the murders and experienced a change in his personality, thoughts or perspective on life after the fact, then the idea that he was suffering from an existential crisis would be irrelevant. However, it is made known from the first page of the novel that his crisis existed long before his actions of murder. He murdered the pawnbroker and her sister for no reason that he can think of. Raskolnikov murdered due to the lack of action and direction in his life (The Lit Quest). He was so deeply entrenched in his apathetic life that he desperately needed to do something, to “dare,” as he puts it: "...I wanted to dare, and I killed- I only wanted to dare. Sonya, there is the whole reason” (Dostoyevsky 334).
Another piece of evidence to support this theory is the fact that Raskolnikov does not feel anything after he murdered. His actions did not benefit or “cure” his sense of listlessness and inaction in any way. The guilt that stems from the murders only temporarily alleviates his lack of action. It allowed him to focus on something, to blame himself for something, to worry about something that is completely separate from his own lack of motivation and self orientation. His guilt may have been relieved once he turned himself in to the authorities, but the epilogue informs the reader that he soon reverts back to his initial state of mind that we were first introduced to. There is no escape from his existential crisis because his attempt to fix himself proved to be unsuccessful. The one time in the entire story where he experiences true redemption is when he steps away from himself and his own thinking and gives up his inherent need for control. This occurs when he learns to accept Sonya’s guidance and love. Raskolnikov finally stops thinking about himself and gives himself over to another person, subjecting himself to pain and uncertainty. He is then able to separate himself from the polarizing despair of his identity and adopt a different view on life where he accepts the fact that nothing is realistically within his control. The romance itself plays little to no importance to his journey of self discovery and is symbolic in the escaping of one's self. This is the one and only solution he finds to cure his primary absence of purpose that drove him to commit the murders in the first place (The Lit Quest).
On the other hand, Raskolnikov is a complex character who possesses many different traits that compliment each other but also seem to contradict each other at the same time. As with people in real life, having background information on a person and being privy to their psychology is crucial to understanding why that person behaves the way they do. One could argue that it is important to delve into the psyche of an individual to gain a basic understanding of them. In Raskolnikov’s case, the reader is not privy to much information about his life growing up. Readers are introduced to Raskolnikov’s character as a young man already struggling from internal strife with no prior history of what he was like before. This makes things a bit more difficult to understand his psychology, but Dostoyevsky includes some clues that help the reader somewhat figure things out. Raskolnikov’s name itself holds its origins in the Russian word “raskolnik,” which means to be divided or split. The significance and importance of his name alone is obvious throughout the novel in more than one scene in which readers are given a glimpse of his introspection or the examination of his own mental and emotional processes. Dostoyevsky uses introspection as a means of conveying Raskolnikov’s “inner self,” which, as stated before, is completely different than how he carries himself on the outside. He also uses Raskolnikov’s own observation of himself to emphasize his personality or multiple personalities. Through these moments of introspection, the reader is able to gain a basic understanding of Raskolnikov’s internal conflict, instability, and dual nature as a character: “...his mental powers were failing, splitting up...his mind clouding” (Dostoyevksy 97).
In the novel, Dostoyevsky creates inherent contradictions in Raskolnikov’s theory of “the extraordinary man.” In order to show the development of his mindset, Raskolnikov had to murder the women before he completely figured himself out. At one point, Raskolnikov argued that he murdered to help rid mankind of a waste of a person, but then he later refutes that the “extraordinary man” is above mankind and is not concerned with the opinions of others. To sum it up, Raskolnikov was confused with his own ideals. He is mixing his personal emotions and thoughts with those of his theory. To him, men can only be one of two things: ordinary or extraordinary. Ordinary men must subject themselves to a life in submission; they do not have the right to break the law because they are ordinary. In contrast, extraordinary men can do as they please, including transgressing the law, because they have the right to do so. What marks the difference between an ordinary and extraordinary man? Extraordinary men take whatever they want and do whatever they want in order to push civilization itself to new heights. They have the right to pass the law or any obstacles that lay in their path to fulfill their ideas that will eventually lead to the progression of the human race. If the extraordinary men took laws into consideration, they would cease to be great. It is their power and their right to surpass the common law that makes them great to begin with. They are then able to create their own new laws, and they have the right to get rid of any member of society in order to do so (Dostoyevsky). Therefore, Raskolnikov eliminates the pawnbroker and her sister because they were standing in his way by not contributing to the development of mankind. In his mind, he could use Alyona’s money to properly educate himself so he could start helping humanity. At the time of the murder, Raskolnikov was not thinking about the consequences his actions would bring. All he was concerned with was whether he could assert his will and dominance or not. In essence, Raskolnikov killed merely to prove that he was capable of doing so- to prove that his will was strong and that he did not belong in the “ordinary” category of men.
Regardless of having a basic understanding of his character or not, it is still difficult to comprehend how he never truly considers whether what he is doing is “right” or “wrong.” His moral ambiguity makes the reader question a lot of things throughout the novel. Raskolnikov cannot simply be labeled as a “hero” or a “villain” right after the reader discovers he murdered two people because who is to say what “right” and “wrong” are in the first place? One’s moral compass is completely dependant on one’s thoughts, what they believe and what they were raised to believe. While murder is considered a treacherous act that is labeled as “wrong” in society, Raskolnikov does not perceive it as so. The murder of Alyona was not a crime in his mind, but a good deed he did to benefit the world. At the beginning of the book, Raskolnikov states that he intends to use her money for good. Also, Raskolnikov justifies his actions in his own mind with his thought that “great men” must remove difficulties in their lives in order to actually become great. He often compares himself to Napoleon, which is fitting since he shows signs of being stuck in a Napoleonic state of mind due to his false machismo that compensates for his feelings of inferiority. The fact that it is quite difficult to decide whether Raskolnikov is a moral or immoral character is central to Crime and Punishment. This debate acts as a transition from the small question, “Is Raskolnikov moral?,” to the much larger question, “What are morals?”
Works Cited
Dostoyevsky, Fyodor. Crime and punishment. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Christian Classics Ethereal Library, 199. Print.
Shmoop Editorial Team. "Crime and Punishment." Shmoop.com. Shmoop University, Inc., 11 Nov. 2008. Web. 15 Apr. 2014. <http://www.shmoop.com/crime-and-punishment/>.
No comments:
Post a Comment